Seismic Performance and Design

Requirements for High-Rise

Concrete Buildings
By Joe Maffei, S.E., Ph.D. & Noelle Yuen, S.E.

n recent years there has been a resurgence

of high-rise construction in the major
cities along the West Coast of the U.S.
Unlike previous high-rise booms, most
of the new and proposed tall buildings are for
residential or mixed use rather than for offices.
Concrete construction is often favored, and
many of the new high-rises use concrete corewall construction without supplemental moment
frames in the seismic-force-resisting system.
Concrete core-wall construction can offer advantages of lower costs, faster construction, and more
open and flexible architecture. Cost and schedule
savings are realized because core-wall buildings
withstand seismic forces and deformations without the moment frames that are used in traditional
high-rise construction. By eliminating the need for
moment frames, smaller framing members or flat
slabs can be used for the building floors, and the
framing depth of floors can be reduced.
In a core wall building, resistance to seismic
forces is provided by a reinforced concrete core that
surrounds the elevator banks. Stairs, restrooms,
and mechanical/service uses may also be located
within the core. For buildings 300 feet or taller, the
concrete core usually has a minimum dimension of
30 feet in each plan direction, with walls that are
18 to 30 inches thick (Figure 1). Regular openings
are used in the core walls, and the coupling beams
above the openings are reinforced and detailed to
dissipate earthquake energy.

Code Acceptance of NonPrescriptive Designs

In high seismic zones, prescriptive provisions of
U.S. building codes do not permit the core-wall

Figure 1: Concrete core-wall building under

construction, the Washington Mutual/Seattle
Art Museum, Magnusson Klemencic Associates,
Structural Engineers.

structural system for buildings over 240 feet tall;

however, under building code provisions that permit alternative systems, building authorities have
granted approval to core-wall buildings greater
than 240 feet tall using the process of Seismic Peer
Review. (See sidebar.) The Engineer of Record is
required to identify any exceptions being taken to
prescriptive requirements, and to demonstrate to
an expert reviewer that the building provides at
least equivalent seismic performance to that implied or resulting from the prescriptive requirements of the building code.
The task of the Engineer of Record is to show
that a building satisfies the equivalent performance
criteria defined in IBC Section 104.11:
104.11 Alternate materials, design and methods of
construction and equipment. The provisions of this
code are not intended to prevent the installation of
any material or to prohibit any design or method
of construction not specifically prescribed by this
code, provided that any such alternative has been
approved. An alternative material, design or method
of construction shall be approved where the building
official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory
and complies with the intent of the provisions of this
code, and that the material, method or work offered
is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent
of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength,
effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.
For non-prescriptive seismic designs, the
performance is evaluated with respect to strength,
effectiveness, and safety. Alternative or nonprescriptive seismic designs are also accepted in
the building code by ASCE 7-05, Section 12.1.1,
paragraph 3:
Seismic force-resisting systems that are not contained
in Table 12.2-1 shall be permitted if analytical
and test data are submitted that establish the
dynamic characteristics and demonstrate the lateral
force resistance and energy dissipation capacity
to be equivalent to the structural systems listed in
Table 12.2-1 for equivalent response modification
coefficient, R, system overstrength coefficient, o, and
deflection amplification factor, Cd, values.
Although Table 12.2-1 of ASCE 7-05 lists a
number of types of concrete wall seismic-force-resisting systems, none of the design rules for such
systems are as stringent as the capacity-design requirements typically applied to the design of corewall high-rise buildings. Thus, based on expected
seismic performance, capacity-designed and flexure-governed concrete wall buildings can be con-

STRUCTURE magazine

28

April 2007

sidered a distinct type of seismic-force-resisting

system. This distinction currently exists in building
codes outside the US, and has been discussed as a
potential change to upcoming US building codes
by the American Concrete Institute and National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

Capacity Design
The capacity-design approach to seismic design
requires that the structural engineer:
1) Select a desirable mechanism of non linear lateral deformation for the
structure, which identifies those
structural elements and actions that are
intended to undergo nonlinear
response. The mechanism should not
lead to concentrated nonlinear defor mations such as occurs, for example,
with a story mechanism.
2) Ensure that the detailing of the desig nated nonlinear elements provides
adequate ductility capacity, i.e., allows
the elements to deform well beyond
yield without significant
strength degradation.
3) Design all other elements and actions
of the structure for elastic, or nearly
elastic, response.
For a concrete core-wall building under
earthquake lateral displacement, the desired
mechanism consists of flexural plastic hinging
near the base of the core wall and flexural yielding
of coupling beams, as shown in Figure 2. Some
core-wall buildings have coupling beams only in
one plan direction, with walls in the other plan
direction acting as cantilever walls, as shown
in Figure 2. The cantilever wall is designed to
develop a single plastic hinge at its base. In each
plan direction, the wall flanges, typically including
the entire core-wall section, contribute to global
moment capacity.
The nonlinear elements of the structure
coupling beams and the base plastic hinge are
detailed for ductile response. Other elements and
actions of the structure such as wall shear, wall
moment outside the hinge zone, floor and roof
diaphragms, and foundations are given sufficient
strength that their behavior will be essentially
elastic. Table 1 lists structural elements and actions
for a core-wall building that are typically designed
for nonlinear behavior and those that are designed
for elastic, capacity-protected behavior.

Gravity Framing

Floor Diaphragms
at and Below
Grade Transfer
Forces from Core
Wall to Perimeter
Retaining Walls

Concrete Core Wall

without Openings
(Cantilever Wall)

Flexural Plastic
Hinge Location,
Detailed for
Ductility

Concrete
Core Wall
with Openings
(Coupled Wall)

Two-Stage Design Process

Plastic Hinge
Locations at
Coupling Beams
and Base of Wall

Foundation
Below-Grade
Perimeter
Retaining Walls

Figure 2: The typical nonlinear action for a cantilever wall (left) is a flexural plastic hinge at the base of the
wall. For a coupled wall (right) nonlinear actions are flexure-yielding coupling beams and a flexural plastic
hinge at the base of the wall.

Flexure-Governed Design
A critical consideration in the design of the
concrete wall system is to protect against shear
failure in the wall. A wall governed by flexural
yielding will maintain its lateral-force resistance
through large displacements and will deform in a
way that distributes deformation over the height
of the building. A wall shear failure, by contrast,
leads to a degradation of strength and can cause
a concentration of deformation and damage over
a limited height (Figure 3). Flexure-governed
response provides a greater assurance against
collapse in a severe earthquake.
The seismic design process for concrete core-wall
buildings is based on methods that were established
in the New Zealand and Canadian building codes
beginning in the 1970s. A large number of corewall high-rises were built in Vancouver before
the methodology was applied, with Seismic Peer
Review, to high-rise buildings in the Seattle area
and elsewhere in the U.S.

Capacity Design
using Nonlinear
Response-History Analyses
The capacity design approach was principally
developed and promoted by researchers and practicing engineers in New Zealand, at a time when
computer analysis capabilities were limited. Nonlinear response-history (NLRH) analyses were
only feasible on large university computers using
two-dimensional models of simplified structures.
Researchers used such analyses to derive detailed
requirements for capacity design that could be applied to simpler static and linear analysis and design practices.
These detailed capacity-design requirements,
such as dynamic shear amplification factors, are
still useful, particularly for regular structures less
than 20 stories and for the preliminary design
of taller structures. Today, thanks to recent advances and availability in structural analysis soft-

ware, the capacity design approach can be combined with building-specific NLRH analyses to
design high-rise buildings and verify acceptable
seismic performance.

Figure 3: Concrete wall failing in shear in the 1995

Kobe earthquake. Capacity design aims to protect
against such a failure mode.

Core-wall high-rise buildings can be designed

according to a two-stage process that follows the
capacity-design approach and assesses seismic
performance under severe earthquake ground
motions.
The first stage of the process is to design the
building to comply with all code provisions (except
for identified exceptions such as the height limit).
This means that the designated yielding elements
of the building, namely the flexural design of the
core-wall hinge zone and the coupling beams, are
designed for code-level demands including the
code R factor. For tall buildings with long periods,
this code-level demand is typically governed by
minimum base shear requirements (Figure 4).
The second stage is to analyze the structure using an NLRH analysis at the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) level of ground motion.
The MCE level is currently defined in building
codes to correspond to a 975-year return period
in California and about a 2500-year return period
elsewhere. The purpose of this analysis is to:
1) Verify that the expected seismic
behavior of the structure is governed
by the intended mechanism, with
nonlinear behavior occurring only in
the designated structural elements.
2) Verify that all other potential mecha nisms and actions remain essentially
elastic. When evaluating actions
designed to remain elastic, the design
should consider the dispersion of the
NLRH results, rather than just the
average response.

Table 1: Typical nonlinear and capacity-protected elements for a core-wall building with
concrete flat slabs.
Structural elements and actions designed for
nonlinear behavior:
Coupling beams (diagonally reinforced if
deformation demands are high)
Base of wall plastic-hinge zone

Notes
Strength is determined from Code-Level
evaluation. Elements are detailed for
ductile response.

Although considered part of the gravity

Floor and roof slabs in out-of-plane flexure system, slabs may yield from induced
lateral displacement.
Structural elements and actions designed for
elastic (capacity-protected) behavior:
Wall shear and sliding shear
Wall moment outside designated
hinge zone
Floor and roof diaphragms and collectors
Foundation perimeter walls
Foundations
Columns
Floor and roof slab punching shear

STRUCTURE magazine

29 April 2007

Notes

Strength is determined from the MCE level

nonlinear response-history (NLRH) analysis.
Elements are designed to remain
essentially elastic.

0.13

San
Salt Lake
Seattle Francisco
City
98104
94102
84111
S1 = 0.56 S1 = 0.66 S1 = 0.78

0.12
0.11
0.10

MINIMUM BASE SHEAR/WEIGHT, CS

0.09
0.08

2002 ASCE-7
Eqs. 9.5.5.2.1-3
and 9.5.5.2.1-4

1997 UBC Eqs.

30-6 and 30-7
and 2000 IBC

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04

2005 ASCE-7
Eq. 12.8-5, 12.8-6

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.2

1.3

S1 code-mapped spectral accelaration at 1 second, g

Figure 4: Minimum base shear equations for recent building codes, as a function of the ground motion
parameter S1.
Properly applied, the NLRH analysis takes
the place of applying the code-prescribed overstrength factor, W0,to actions designed to
remain elastic.

Semi-PerformanceBased Design
The design approach could be considered a
semi-performance-based. The Code Level evaluation aims to have the design meet all prescriptive
code requirements with which it is logical that the
design comply, without evaluating seismic performance. The MCE Level evaluation explicitly
considers the performance of the structure at a
level for which the structure should not collapse.
This evaluation uses state-of-the-art methods of
analysis, and structural force and deformation
capacities based on expected rather than nominal
values. Story drift limitations can be checked at
the Code Level, and also at the MCE Level; for

example, using the average of the response-history

runs and taking acceptable drift as 1.5 times that
in the building code.
A performance-based evaluation of serviceability in moderate earthquake ground motions
can also be added to the design approach. For
core-wall buildings the serviceability evaluation
could include an explicit evaluation of the level
of ground motion for which coupling beam damage affects the post-earthquake occupancy of the
building. A determination about the significance
of various levels of coupling-beam damage, based
on research results, would be necessary for such an
evaluation.

Interaction with the

Gravity System
In customary seismic design practice, the
structural engineer designates certain elements
to be part of the Seismic-Force-Resisting System.

For concrete buildings, these are typically structural walls and moment frames. Gravity framing
is usually not included in the lateral analysis for
earthquake resistance, but is instead evaluated for
its ability to sustain the imposed seismic deformations. In reality, gravity framing systems contribute
to some degree to lateral-force resistance, and this
contribution should be considered in the design of
high-rise buildings, particularly at the MCE-level
evaluation.
For core-wall buildings with concrete flat-slab
floors, the gravity structural system consists of
the floor slabs and supporting columns. Lateral
displacement of the core wall and columns of the
building induces moments and shears in the floor
slabs, which act as unintentional outriggers that
increase the buildings lateral resistance. Often,
the lateral displacement under MCE-level ground
motions is enough to cause flexural yielding in the
slabs. Yielding of the floor slabs is typically acceptable, while other failure modes such as punching
shear from the induced deform-ations must be
prevented (Table 1, see page 29).
Two other aspects of this slab-outrigger effect
are important for engineers to evaluate. The first
is that shear in the core wall is increased, and the
second is that earthquake axial forces are generated
in the gravity columns. These demands should
be included in the shear design of the core wall and
in the design of the columns.

Defining Equivalent
Seismic Performance
The IBCs equivalence criterion requires that
the buildings seismic performance be at least
the equivalent of that prescribed in this code.
In assessing seismic performance, the Engineer
of Record and Peer Reviewer should consider
both the intentions of the building code, and the
performance that results from a code-prescriptive
design with good seismic performance.

Table 2: Differences between Seismic Peer Review and Structural Plan Check
Seismic Peer Review

Structural Plan Check

Done by an engineering firm or a panel of engineers, independent of Done by a jurisdictions building authority or by a third-party
the Engineer of Record, with expertise in seismic design
consultant to the jurisdiction.
Ideally starts at schematic design

Reviews completed structural documents.

Review of seismic criteria, seismic evaluation and design concepts

and methods, preliminary design, and final design

Review is for compliance with prescriptive structural

requirements of the building code.

Typically covers only seismic design.

Covers gravity, wind, seismic, and any other loads.

Peer reviewer gives professional opinion (e.g., to building authority)

Jurisdiction has the authority to grant or deny building permit.

Is recommended for projects where the seismic criteria, design

methods, or performance are not pre-determined or may be
complex. Required for certain types of seismic systems or seismic
analysis methods.

In most jurisdictions is carried out at some level of detail on all

types of building projects.

Paid for by owner.

Paid for by permit fees.

STRUCTURE magazine

30

April 2007

A problematic issue is that the building codes

intended seismic performance is defined only
in general terms (SEAOC Blue Book Section
C101.1), and it may be impossible to ever more
specifically define the seismic performance intent
of the building code. Part of the reason is that
current design rules for different seismic systems
in the building code may result in quite different
levels of seismic performance from one system to
another. Another part of the reason is that the
assumptions used in attempting to define seismic
performance ground motion, soil and structure
properties, non-linear demands, deformation
capacity, etc. all include significant uncertainty.
This uncertainty is related to both the inherent
variability of earthquake and material phenomena,
and to the limitations in our knowledge of the best
methods and assumptions to use in all the steps of
predicting seismic performance.
For the reasons noted above, predicting seismic performance is complex and uncertain, and
hence code intentions are defined only in general
terms. Thus, if one only considers code intentions,
judging whether the seismic performance of a nonprescriptive design is equivalent to code can be
difficult. Accordingly, it can be helpful if one considers, in addition to code intentions, the seismic
performance that is expected to result from the
code-prescriptive design of a building similar to
the non-prescriptive design being considered.
This consideration can be useful in judging
equivalent performance for parts of a structural
design that are not closely related to those prescriptive exceptions being taken using alternative
design methods. A point to remember here is that,
because building codes are not perfect, it is possible to design a high-rise building that meets all
prescriptive code requirements, and yet still leads
to inadequate performance in an earthquake. (For
example a shear failure in a wall along with a concentration of nonlinear deformation over just a
few stories.) Such a benchmark would not be accepted as equivalent performance, because it does
not meet the intent of the code. It is not acceptable
to provide equivalence to a poorly performing, yet
code compliant building.

Joe Maffei S.E., Ph.D. is a Principal and Noelle

Yuen S.E. is a senior technical consultant at
Rutherford & Chekene Consulting engineers in
San Francisco. From 1999 to the present, R & C
has carried out the Seismic Peer Review of more
than fifteen high-rise concrete wall buildings, in
Seattle, Bellevue, San Francisco, Sacramento,
San Jose, and San Diego.

Seismic Peer Review versus

Structural Plan Check
For both Seismic Peer Review and Structural Plan Check, the work of the Engineer of Record
is subjected to an independent and objective review by another licensed engineer. While Structural
Plan Check has long been part of the permitting process for most buildings, the additional step of
Seismic Peer Review has become more common in the past decade because of an increased realization
that good seismic performance can depend on more than conformance to building-code prescriptions. Differences between Seismic Peer Review and Structural Plan Check are summarized in Table
2. The Structural Engineer Association of California has written professional practice guidelines on
Peer Review.
Neither a Seismic Peer Review nor a Structural Plan Check relieves the Engineer of Record from
being fully responsible for the structural design. Both Seismic Peer Review and Structural Plan Check
should be carried out with the objective of providing an impartial and independent review of the
Engineer of Records work.
Seismic Peer Review should start during the early phases of a project and include an examination
of basic design concepts, objectives, and criteria proposed for the project. Major decisions affecting
the seismic design are reviewed throughout the project with a consideration of the expected seismic
performance. Typically the Peer Reviewers comments are documented in a comment log, along with
the Engineer of Records response, references to associated follow-up comments, and an indication
whether each comment is resolved.
Seismic Peer Review can be a voluntary process that an owner chooses to employ, it can be requested
by a building authority, or it can be required by the building code. The 2006 International Building
Code requires Seismic Peer Review (called Design Review) when the nonlinear response-history
method of structural analysis is used, or when certain design solutions, such as base-isolation or
energy-dissipation devices, are used. Building authorities typically require a Seismic Peer Review when
an alternative (i.e., non-prescriptive) method of seismic design is proposed.
Structural Plan Check focuses on determining if a set of construction documents conforms to the
structural requirements of the governing building code. Structural Plan Check differs from Seismic
Peer Review in that it covers the review of the structural design for gravity, wind, and other loads in
addition to seismic effects. Structural Plan Check is typically a review of final or near-final documents,
and does not focus on evaluating seismic performance, but instead on reviewing a completed design
for code conformance.
A building authority can use Structural Plan Check to approve or reject a building permit application.
In contrast, a Seismic Peer Reviewer does not directly have the authority to approve or reject a design.
The responsibility of the Peer Reviewer is to provide their professional opinion, typically in a findings
letter, to the party requesting the Peer Review.
Structural Plan Check is typically paid for by building permit fees, while Seismic Peer Review
is typically an added cost to the owner. In the case where a building authority requests a peer
review, the peer reviewer often contracts with the jurisdiction, which then passes on the cost to the
building owner.

REFERENCES
ICC, 2006, International Building Code 2006, International Code Council, Falls Church Virginia.
ASCE, 2005, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05), Prepared
by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virgina.
FIB, 2003, Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Building Structures, State of the Art Report prepared
by Task Group 7.3, International Federation for Structural Concrete (FIB), Lausanne, Switzerland,
October.
Paulay, T. and M. J. N. Priestley, 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
SEAOC, 1999, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Seismology Committee,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento California.
SEAOC, 1999, Project Design Peer Review (Chapter 4, October 1995) Recommended Guidelines
for the practice of Structural Engineering in California, Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, California.

STRUCTURE magazine

31 April 2007